V SRINIVAS Vs. APSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner a conductor working for the State owned Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short "APSRTC") challenges the validity of the charge sheet issued by the Depot Manager, Siddipet on 10.05.2013 calling for the explanation of the writ petitioner for three different charges. The writ petitioner is allegedly involved in criminal case No. 71 of 2013 and hence he was arrested and detained between 24.03.2013 and 03.04.2013. Due to his absence from service, he is now subjected to the disciplinary proceedings by framing three. different charges against him through the impugned charge sheet dated 10.05.2013.

(2.) Sri V. Narsimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the writ petitioner, for certain inexplicable reasons has been unnecessarily involved in a criminal case and he sought to be victimised on that ground. He would urge that the contents of the complaint lodged against the petitioner, which is treated as F.I.R., would disclose the hollowness behind the claim of the Prosecutrix, but unfortunately he will have to await judgment by the Criminal Court which might take a longer period. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further urge that the conduct of the writ petitioner, so long as he is discharging his duties, was beyond any reproach and he has not even spoken to adversely for one to point out an accusing finger towards him. Therefore, placing the writ petitioner under suspension and then framing a charge against him is totally unjust. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the Corporation itself has realised the futility behind placing employees under suspension, pending criminal cases, and hence issued detailed instructions through their Circular No. LC5/82-83 dated 14.02.1983 and in spite of the same respondent No. 2 - Depot Manager has committed the very same folly which the Corporation thought should be avoided.

(3.) Employment with the APSRTC is a public employment. APSRTC is a corporation which is a state owned corporation and thus is the visible face of the State itself. Persons who are said to be involved in serious criminal cases cannot be permitted to continue in employment as the morale at work place would first get shattered and secondly in the perception of the general public, the image of the State itself will get diminished. Public employment calls for high elements of moral and ethical conduct on the part of its employees. Should anyone, unfortunately get involved in criminal cases, he had to suffer the ignominy in private, but cannot be allowed to perform his duties till such time he is either acquitted or discharged from such criminal cases. Otherwise it is the image of the public employment, which would get dented in the process. That is the philosophy enshrined behind the concept of "deemed suspension" of an employee who is detained in custody for more than 48 hours. Such a fictional suspension of the contract of employment spings automatically the moment the period of detention crosses 48 hours. In view of this public policy and rational thought process behind such fictional suspension, I am not able to subscribe to the view points canvassed by the petitioner against the impugned order.